Agenda item

(To receive a report by the Executive Director – Place, which seeks approval for acceptance of the invitation from Radioactive Waste Management to join a working group to explore the potential for a geological disposal facility in eastern Lincolnshire)

1.    That the invitation from Radioactive Waste Management for the Council to join a Working Group to explore the potential for a Geological Disposal Facility in eastern Lincolnshire be accepted;

2.    That the Council take up membership of any subsequent Community Partnership that may be formed;

3.    That Councillor M J Hill OBE, Leader of the Council, represent the Council on the Working Group and, if it is formed, the Community Partnership.

The Assistant Director – Growth introduced the report which set out the invitation from Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) to join a Working Group to explore further whether eastern Lincolnshire, and the former Theddlethorpe Gas Terminal site, in particular, would be an appropriate location for a geological disposal facility.  The formation of a Working Group was a government requirement, and the government's preference was that a relevant principal local authority should be part of a working group.  A similar invitation had been sent to East Lindsey District Council.

The report had been considered at the meeting of the Environment and Economy Scrutiny Committee on 14 September 2021, and the comments of the scrutiny committee had been included in the report presented to the Executive.

The Assistant Director – Growth stressed that joining the working group did not mean that Lincolnshire County Council supported the concept of a geological disposal facility, and also that the working group would not be where any decision about locating a geological disposal facility would be taken.  It would be the local community, through a Public Test of Support, who would determine whether a geological disposal facility should be located in the area.  It was also highlighted that it was known that there were other commercial energy sector interests in the site as well.

The reasons why RWM had made contact with the County Council and East Lindsey District Council were explained, and also that RWM were leading on the Department of Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) sponsored project to deliver a geological disposal facility.  The aim of the project was to dispose of the UK's higher activity radioactive waste deep underground safely, and permanently.  It was also noted that RWM had indicated that a geological disposal facility could provide over 1000 construction jobs and then several hundred permanent technical and skilled jobs, as well as investment in the area's infrastructure, through flood management, transport infrastructure, road improvements etc.  However, this initial analysis would need to be verified.

The Chairman of the Environment and Economy Scrutiny Committee presented the comments from the Committee's consideration of the report on 14 September 2021.  He thanked the members of the campaign group and their co-ordinator who had attended the meeting for the way they had conducted themselves and also highlighted that he had arranged for Mr Ken Smith to speak at the Committee meeting, where he had expressed the concerns of the local residents.  The Council had engaged with the campaign group in a positive and productive manner.  The comments of the Committee were set out in the report.  It was highlighted that the Committee had emphasised the importance of being part of the discussion.  Members of the Committee also recognised that this proposal could potentially address issues of deprivation in eastern Lincolnshire.  However, it was made clear that it was up to the residents to decide if they wanted such a facility in their locality.  He also clarified that the Scrutiny Committee members held no view on whether the facility should go ahead, but wished to ensure that residents had access to information so they could make a well informed and balanced decision.  The Scrutiny Committee had supported the recommendation to join the working group (with one vote against) but did highlight the need for the working group to consider engaging with the local parish council and the various residents' bodies and groups.

The Executive Councillor for Waste and Trading Standards advised that he intended to speak as the adjoining ward member and incorporate some of the views of Councillor N Sear (local ward member).  He advised that he had received e-mails from local residents and listened to representations made to parish councils, and noted that there had been a mix of views, both for and against the proposal. Some of the views of residents which were highlighted included:

·         It would help the local economy, particularly Mablethorpe;

·         Property prices could be affected;

·         It would negatively affect tourism;

·         There was a lack of suitable infrastructure;

·         Concerns about safety;

Other comments highlighted included;

·         Whilst a GDF may be the right thing to do, it was queried whether the east coast of Lincolnshire was an appropriate location;

·         A GDF should not be located in an area where hydrocarbons were being exploited;

·         A property prices guarantee scheme should be put in place to allow people to still sell their property if it was devalued by the proximity to the facility.

·         A public test of support could be 10 – 15 years away, which would cause many years of uncertainty for local residents, which was unacceptable. 

·         It was commented that if there was to be a public test of support, it should be as local as possible, and it should be run in the same way as an election using the "first past the post" system, with the result being final.

·         A clearly scheduled timeline should be issued, of at least six months' notice, in order to give everyone time to consider the proposal.

A discussion by the Executive took place, and the following was noted:

·         In relation to determining whether the geology of the area would be appropriate, there were clear steps set out in the Policy.  A series of pieces of technical research would need to be undertaken, and the Working Group would receive the outcomes of this work.  The Community Partnership would ensure that this information was properly understood and communicated to the public.

·         It was queried whether planning permission would need to be obtained for the exploration work.  It was confirmed that licenses would be required for this work to be able to progress, and if a proposal came forward it would be as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, and the final decision on granting permission would be made by the Planning Inspectorate.  The site at Theddlethorpe was still considered to be a brownfield site, and it was highlighted that there were also other parties interested in this particular site.

·         A GDF was national and international government policy, and a GDF would be located somewhere in the UK.  The tests which would need to be undertaken for a location to be deemed as suitable were vigorous and far reaching.  It was commented that it was important for the Council to be part of the working group that would allow these tests to be undertaken, and then ensure the information obtained was shared.  It would be the public that lived in that location that determined whether they wanted to live with this facility for decades to come.

·         Whilst it was acknowledged that there was the potential for this proposal to regenerate Mablethorpe and the surrounding area, there was a need for the County Council to be able to shape the discussions with RWM and guarantee that it would be the public making the final decision.

·         Concerns were raised regarding the numbers of jobs that were promised by this proposal.  There would be a need to ensure that all claims made regarding the benefits of the proposal were properly and thoroughly examined.

·         It was highlighted that the working group could still go ahead, even if the County Council chose not to accept the invitation to join.

·         If at any point the County Council wished to withdraw from the working group, there was a set process which could occur at any time, and was known as Right to Withdraw.  Both principal local authorities (LCC and ELDC) would need to decide to withdraw, and it would also be best practice to consult the community before making this decision.  Following this, the Council would then need to inform both RWM and the Secretary of State of its decision.

·         In terms of timescales, the working group would operate for a maximum of 12 – 18 months.  It was acknowledged that uncertainty was a significant issue for residents and therefore the council would want to press for a shorter duration of the working group.

·         In relation to the Community Grant Programme for the search area, this funding would be made available to community groups in the first instance.  There would be a role for the Community Partnership and local authorities to ensure that when funding was made available it was focused on things which were important to the local community.

·         The Community Partnership would set the framework for the grant programme, with up to £1million per year being made available, which would rise to £2.5million per year on the commencement of drilling.  It was highlighted that there was no requirement to return this money if the site was found to be unsuitable or the decision was made to not support the proposal.

·         It was proposed and seconded that Councillor M J Hill OBE, be nominated as the County Council's representative to the working group.

RESOLVED

1.    That the invitation from Radioactive Waste Management for the Council to join a Working Group to explore the potential for a Geological Disposal Facility in eastern Lincolnshire be accepted;

2.    That the Council take up membership of any subsequent Community Partnership that may be formed;

3.    That Councillor M J Hill OBE, Leader of the Council, represent the Council on the Working Group and, if it is formed, the Community Partnership.

(For resolutions 1 and 2, there were 6 votes in favour and 1 abstention; for resolution 3, there were 5 votes in favour and 2 abstentions)